God and Creation: Power in the Service of Love (SBD 4)

[Note: I am attempting to keep these SBD installments under 2000 words each, but that is–of course–quite inadequate for the topics covered. Consequently, these contributions are more programmatic than they are explanatory or defenses of the positions stated. You may access the whole series at my Serial page.]

Though neither bounded nor contained by the creation, the Triune God of Light and Love lives in relationship with and acts within the creation.

The transcendence of God is often where we begin talking about God. “This is the earthly way of thinking of a Lord,” Eberhard Jüngel notes, “first he has all power, and then perhaps he can be merciful–but then again, perhaps not” (God as the Mystery of the World, 21). When transcendence is our starting point, power or sovereignty dominate our image of God, and this tends to construe “the glory of God” as some kind of egocentricity. One potential result is that the will of God becomes a function of power (or arbitrariness) rather than relationality.

The Christian doctrine of God, as Barth said, is the Trinity. When this is our starting point (or even when we start with the paradigmatic redemptive events in Israel’s history or in Christology), the emphasis falls on relationality (communion) rather than power. It encompasses transcendence, but power serves love rather than love as an addendum to or a coordinate with power. If love served power or if power were the fundamental identity of God, then there would have never been an incarnation where the powerful became powerless.

The powerful (transcendent) God acts in love for the sake of communion or relationship. God, as Barth says, “loves in freedom” and acts with power to demonstrate or manifest that love. This is the fundamental essence of God: the transcendent God who freely loves in holiness by immanently communing with the creation.

The Faithful Holy Lover

God is “holy love” (Grenz). 1 John is structured around the two themes that “God is light” (1 John 1:5) and “God is love” (1 John 4:8). John’s two simple, but profound, declarative statements about God summarize his theology and are defined by his Christology. “God is light” is understood in the light of the righteous purity of Jesus (1 John 2:1-2; 3:2-6) and “God is love” is understood in the light of the atonement of Christ (1 John 4:8-9). Moreover, this light and love is experience by God in Triune communion and communicated to humanity through the indwelling Spirit (1 John 4:13-14). God is also community, a community of holy love, who lives in communion with humanity.

Israel experienced God as holy lover. God marries Israel in righteousness and justice (holy), in lovingkindness and compassion (love), and in faithfulness (Hosea 2:19-20). This is parallel to John’s imagery of holiness, love and community. The Holy Lover pursues Israel, marries her again and loves her despite her brokenness.

Psalm 99, a praise of divine holiness, provides a doxological rubric for thinking about God as the “Holy Lover.” The Psalm thrice declares that God “is holy” (vv. 3b, 5c, 9c). The first stanza focuses on divine transcendence, the second stanza focuses on divine justice, and the third on relationality. God answers Israel when they call, speaks to them and forgives them. God lives in community with Israel—responding, speaking, disciplining, forgiving and communing.

The third stanza cites one of the great confessions of Israel which is found in Exodus 34:6-7. “”The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.” This is another way of describing the faithful, holy love of God. Though Yahweh punishes sin to the third or fourth generation, the love of God extends to “thousands.”

To affirm divine relationality is to affirm that God is Spirit—the living, loving communal vitality of being present to and communing with the covenant community. To say that God is Spirit is not so much about immateriality as it is life and relationality. This vitality embraces the covenant community, fills them with presence, and empowers them for communion and transformation. The points of the divine triangle may read love, holiness and faithfulness but its center is Life (Spirit).

To say God is holy is to say that God is loving and to say that God is loving is to say that God is holy, and to say either is to say that God is faithfully loving and holy in relation to Triune community and to the creation. God is the faithful holy lover and this is revealed through covenant relationship with Israel, through relationship with the Incarnate Son, and through relationship with the church. It is revealed through God’s acts and presence within history. We know and experience God through divine acts and not by access to transcendence.

Transcendent But Immanent

Yahweh is the God who is, was and is to come; Yahweh is the “I AM”—Being itself, the ontological ground of the cosmos. Our existence arises out of, is dependent upon and shares in God’s own life. God is both Barth’s “Wholly Other” and Tillich’s “Ground of Being.” God is both transcendent and immanent in relation to the creation.

Transcendence means that the finite cannot contain the infinite. Neither the creation nor human words can contain the fullness of God’s reality. There is an “infinite qualitative difference” between God and the creation such that nothing can be identified with God. Any such identification is tantamount to idolatry.

Though providence is a future installment, here it is important to note that divine transcendence does not mean that God is disinterested, uninvolved or disconnected from the creation. Rather, God is dynamically present within and with the creation. “We live and move and have our being” in the Creator (Acts 17:28). Immanence means that God is fully invested, present and active within the creation.

Balancing transcendence and immanence is a difficult theological task but it is important. If God is too distant, we experience God as apathetic and uncaring. If God is too close, we identify ourselves as God. The finite cannot contain the infinite, but the infinite is not absent from the finite.

The balance between transcendence and immanence is doxologically portrayed in Psalm 139. Divine knowledge transcends us (omniscience) but also extends to every corner of creation. Divine presence transcends us (omnipresence) but also fills every space within the creation. Divine transcendence generates wonder, awe and astonishment. Divine immanence generates confidence, belovedness and comfort. Though God is incomprehensible because of transcendence, God is experienced through immanent presence.

Transcendence means that the mode of divine existence is beyond our grasp. Immanence means that God is mysteriously present in all things. The only faithful human response is doxological. We cannot exhaust the depths of how and what God knows (we cannot explain the “omnis”) nor can we intellectually manage the boundaries of divine presence as if to remove the divine mystery from the creation. We can only praise the God who far exceeds the imagination of our finitude both transcendently and immanently.

The One Who Is

Ultimately, theology is doxology because whatever we say about God can only approximate who God really is. Nothing we say about God is univocal, that is, nothing we say about God is exactly and fully how God thinks about God. On the other hand, our talk of God is not simply equivocal either, that is, our language about God says something true accommodated to finite modes of experience. What we theologize, then, is neither fully God’s own knowledge nor mere human imagination. Rather, our God-language is analogical—it only approximates yet nevertheless authentically communicates something true about God. Consequently, we speak of God not as God really is in God’s own life but as God appears to us in faithful, holy love.

Theology, then, is relational for whatever is known about God is secondary to knowing God. Our doxology expresses relationship. We confess God as love because God has loved us. We confess God as holy because God has acted in righteousness and justice. We confess God as communal because God has come to us as Father, Son and Spirit. We praise God as omnipotent because God is creator. We praise God as omniscient because God unfolds history, knowing the beginning from the end. We praise God as omnipresent because wherever we go God is there.

As both doxological and relational, our knowledge of God is rooted in the history of God’s relationship with Israel and Jesus. We know God is love because God has loved us in Jesus. We know God is holy because God has atoned for our sins. We know God is communal because the Father loved the Son. Our knowledge of God comes through knowing God or else our knowledge of God is an impoverished intellectual cognition.

Theology is authentic only when we speak of God doxologically as we are in relationship with God. Psalm 99 and Psalm 139 illustrate this approach to “theology proper.” They are doxological reflections on God’s encounter with humanity where God is experienced as both transcendent and immanent, experienced as faithful, holy and loving.

So What?

This is the community into which humanity is invited, and thus we are called to practice a faithful holy love in community. As creatures created in the image of God and as participants in the divine community, the human community ought to mirror this faithful, holy love….in marriage, in family, in society, in ecclesia.

Divine transcendence and immanence are a bulwark against idolatry and human arrogance. Transcendence means that nothing within creation can be identified as God but immanence means that nothing within creation is devoid of divine mystery. Anything that substitutes for God is idolatry and any thought that defines or binds God is human arrogance.

At the same time divine transcendence is the ground of faith’s confidence since we confess that God is able and divine immanence is the ground of faith’s comfort since we confess that God is always present. The transcendent but immanent God appears to us through redemptive history and is experienced by ineffable presence. God is not unknown but neither is God comprehended nor confined by human knowledge. God is known and experienced through covenant relationship.

Human knowledge of God cannot be univocal with God’s own knowledge since transcendence means that we do not see the world with God’s own eyes. Human knowledge is not equivocal because God has entered history to communicate and commune. Consequently, we speak of God with humility as we recognize that nothing we say is absolutely equivalent with God’s own mind. But at the same time when we think God’s thoughts after him (Van Til) through analogous language we apprehend something true of God. We are, therefore, neither epistemological agnostics nor epistemological rationalists. Rather, we are little children who learn about their Father in ways accommodated to our limited, finite, fallible capacity.

This invigorates the journey to know God. It is a journey that is new every morning as we experience the divine but whose end seems even further away as we recognize our limited capacity to comprehend the one we are coming to know. It is an eternal journey—renewed every morning and filled with the wonder of what we do not yet know.

15 Responses to “God and Creation: Power in the Service of Love (SBD 4)”

  1.   rich constant Says:

    🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

    more smiles more fun…

    Too Much fun john mark.

    much big blessings

  2.   randall Says:

    Another great post! I know many people that I don’t believe I could ever get to read a systematic theology, but I have been busy copying and pasting and sending these on to a bunch of folks thinking that some may read your presentations.

    •   John Mark Hicks Says:

      Be careful, Randall. Before it is all over, you could persuade them to become “Arminians.” 🙂

      •   randall Says:

        The ones that have read a systematic theology are most likely the few Calvinists that I know. The ones I am sending your posts include a few Calvinists, but most may be anywhere on the spectrum between Pelagians and Arminians, and by that I mean Remonstrant Arminians. I think in one post you noted the latter were really closer to being semi-Pelagians. I believe you are the only Aminius type Arminian I know. 😉

        In any event, I have little interest in converting them to being Calvinists or Arminians, but I have a great interest in all of my friends thinking more deeply about God and what he is doing with us. Your posts contribute toward that end to all who take a few minutes to read them and a little longer to reflect upon them.

        So thanks again.

      •   John Mark Hicks Says:

        I was “playing” with you, Randall, as you know. I don’t care to convince anyone about such issues but to think alongside of each other as we mutually sharpen each other. Thanks for your participation and interest, my friend.

  3.   Jr Says:

    1) In reflecting on your first paragraph under the heading “The One Who Is,” what is the role of the Bible in this? Is even the Word an approximation or an analogy?

    2) The next three paragraphs under that heading are crucial. So let’s go there:

    We cannot forget Israel did absolutely nothing for God to choose them as His people. God did it on His own, through covenant; through grace; through love.

    While some teach against it, the greater love is the love God has for His chosen people. A love God gave to Abraham and Israel; though they did nothing to deserve it. Rebellious Israel didn’t choose God; God chose Israel. This is a greater love known as covenant love and it is this love that is found in the covenant of Christ.

    All this to say the People of God are under covenant; not contract. In my opinion, I do not see how we can even begin an accurate, coherent, and complete systematic teaching of relationship, community, and love between God and His creation without this understanding.

    3) The verbage continues to be, shall I say, bromidic.

    4) I would have a blast in this class. Remember what you told me your original motivation was in going to seminary? 🙂

    Grace to you –

  4.   John Mark Hicks Says:

    Ah, Jr, please tell me what is “bromidic”–I can say it in traditional Reformed language if you like where there is Reformed language to express it. 🙂

    Covenant is a concept I will be more particular about when I get to Election and Israel. I agree that Israel was chosen without any regard to their own status, righteousness or worthiness.

    I would remind you that some of rebellious Israel was not the object of God’s grace, as you know. The covenant–as conceived in Reformed theology–is dependent upon some theory of election that is troublesome to some of us who believe that God’s love has universal intent.

    I was a good Pelagian in Reformed classes as Westminster and ended up Arminian. Are there hopes that you might end up Arminian after mine? 🙂

    •   Jr Says:

      “Are there hopes that you might end up Arminian after mine?”

      Doubtful. That would be the wrong way down the learning curve.

      Bromidic – another word for “overused”. The terminology used is tiresome.

      The topic of election will always be a debatable topic on this blog; one you may not wish to rehash here; though perhaps in another post. The Gospel of John makes the point clear enough.

      Good will to you –

      •   John Mark Hicks Says:

        I knew what the word “bromidic” meant, I just did not know which words struck you that way. 🙂

        Wow, I think the Gospel of John makes it clear, too. And that is part of the problem, is it not? We both read with lens that are shaped a certain direction and only through dialogue will we have some mutual understanding and perhaps some common ground (which we do have common ground on many points).

        Blessings, Jr.

  5.   rich constant Says:

    old covenant
    of the
    law.which exposed unrighteousness and gods covenant people were required to implement that law justly, john mark and a new covenant implemented by righteous faith.
    from my question to this
    my question is not an either or although for most every one it appears to be.
    the question is a conundrum (an exercise in sideways logic)
    the Jews missed it and so did most every one (laird”s Baconian approach)and if i knew more i would probably
    list a few more john mark,randel.
    although i will try to get you two back on track to become simply Christians. 🙂 ouch… 🙂 some ONE HELP, GET THIS SHOVEL OUTA MY HAND…CUS I MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO STOP DIGEN….again… 🙂

    🙂 boy oh boy

  6.   rich constant Says:

    the side ways logic
    speaks of intrinsic and forensic…
    from god being just and righteous and god being
    faithful to his name merciful and forgiving etc.
    JUST faithful LOVE and holding the guility accountable
    the curse is the transition from a just holy law of merit by work. to a just holy grace through faithful love(SON). from legal to loving..from condemnation to justification of life through redempshion from the dead of his FAITHFULLY righteous son not legalaly righteous

    the promise… blessing by faith unto life’ gods work.

    so gal.3 and the seed and the faith of the promise

    again i have no bible…

  7.   rich constant Says:

    john mark
    pelagian i looked this up along time ago
    how does it work.

    •   John Mark Hicks Says:

      That’s a long discussion, Rich. But basically classic Pelagians (if there ever really were any historically) believe that God only works through externals, that humanity has the inherent ability to live righteously and perhaps even perfectly, that the grace of God is basically another chance to live by the law correctly, etc.

  8.   clyde s. Says:

    Awesome series, JM–thanx so much for posting all of these. Rock on!

  9.   rich constant Says:

    thanks john mark
    before that was eph,3.4 not2

Leave a Reply